Like I said - no legal system's perfect but where children are concerned, family law is generally built around protecting their well-being and, for this to be scrupulously fair, that has to be considered without emotional concerns playing into the equation. On that basis no child would ever be separated from the parent it loves 'most'. Whether or not they're a hopeless drug addict or delusional or alcoholic or whatever. Sometimes loving a child with all your soul isn't best for the child necessarily if you are yourself unwell or dysfunctional in some way - and may not realise it even. Think of the damage a loving but unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic parent might do to a child if the court listened with compassion to their impassioned pleas of competency and gave into spurious support from unqualified referees who come to their defence, making the whole sorry situation into a total circus?

If it was then courts would rarely separate children from their mothers regardless of whether the father might be the more competent and suitable parent. There has to be substantiation of such serious allegations and this court has made an investigation and found none presumably. It's any family judge's duty to find out whether there's a case to answer and when it's international with full signatory countries to the Hague Convention, this means that both jurisdictions HAVE to work together to determine whether serious allegations against the parent having residential responsibility under the originating order are true before they send the children back into a potentially abusive situation. That really would be totally unjust. From what Del's saying other news reports have been citing some of the information the court had before it that does support the father's position, including statements from (some of?) the children concerned, so there is another side to this beyond the children's traumatised behaviour when the crunch time came to leave the country. Of course they're screaming with terror - their mother's howling at them as well, so of course they'll be distraught.

The 'silent' father was probably required to be that way since most Hague Convention cases generally kick start in the country the children are taken to with them being made wards of court or some equivalent status. This means that the court assumes parental responsibility for the children when found, until such time as investigations are made and it can make a rational decision, with the help of the court and authorities in the other jurisdiction, on whether they get returned or not. They can and do veto the originating order where there's a valid reason for the children not to be returned under law that both jurisdictions recognise. One of the conditions of making children wards of court is generally a blanket blackout of publicity, usually because police might be involved and involving the media might compromise their work. Or sometimes the other way around, but generally once the kids are found it goes back to being dealt with by the court in private, because it's not necessarily a criminal case and there are minors involved who have to be protected from prying eyes for the very reason you're seeing in this case.Who the hell deliberately wants their 9 year old daughter to be chased by TV crews and journalists around an airport? This mother, wittingly or not, invited the press in and so of course the kids will be terrified...

Why has there been no details of what the father's supposed to have done to the kids? Because the court has probably placed an injunction on reporting any details of the case. If there was any credence, actual solid proof, of misconduct on this father's part then you bet that the papers would have put that in their reports if they had enough bottle and their lawyers were confident they'd not be sued out of sight for defamation - or at least for contempt of court. Maybe daddy's a bit strict or restrictive - Italians are protective of their womenfolk after all but if he'd been doing something really horrible then the Italian court wouldn't have let him have the girls in his care in the first place.

The consulate's part in this is peculiar I grant you, but they don't usually have family lawyers at their beck and call and their main field of expertise is in repatriating Australian citizens. The mother may have needed help to get her passport updated perhaps (or the children put on her passport maybe?) but I thought that initially she'd said she was taking the kids to Australia for a holiday? Which is why the father didn't object as he could have done, or even stopped her taking them out of the country in the first place. He didn't, because he thought they were coming back. When they didn't he had to get this whole legal action rolling and it took him a year to achieve that whilst the mother was presumably 'hiding' the girls in some manner? All he's actually done is play things by the book, kept quiet and co-operated with the courts and not entered into the one-sided mud-slinging scenario the mother's solicited. It's not beyond a stretch of the imagination that it's the publicity this has attracted that could primarily be what's causing the distress these girls exhibit and that's all down to mum and not dad isn't it?

If you're mostly only getting information from one source and that information's sensationalised, how can you be sure you're getting the full picture?

And yes, I'm repeating myself mostly now so I'm bored too!

"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw

You know, Julian Assange ain't helping his case here. You'd think he would wait until he was in a position of strength, which frankly he ain't. He's holed up in an embassy where the British will arrest him if he so much as puts his pinky finger out and be deported to Sweden, where, if his claims are correct (and it's perfectly possible that they are, although it may not be), he'll be deported to the US where he may become an unperson (or, more likely, a prisoner) thanks to his secret leaking (and I'm not talking about a medical condition here ). Call me old-fashioned, but I wouldn't call that a position of strength.

Gillard may not have done anything for Assange, or at least nothing visible to the media, (and to be honest, she can't, really, can she?) but frankly, saying you'll sue her while you're still neck-deep in ten kinds of sh** isn't a smart move.

BTW, last night, they aired a television drama of his early days as a hacker. Didn't feel like watching it, as I had already read about Julian Assange's life story (without knowing it until recently) years ago, in the book Underground, by Suelette Dreyfuss. I believe that the book is available online. It's a really interesting story, looking at American, British and (in particular) Aussie hackers of the late 80's/early 90's. I remember when I read that Mendax was actually Julian Assange, and I thought, "Is THAT who it is? I should've known."

Assange also done a runner with the substantial advance money for a book to be written by a ghost writer, but instead spent the money to clear his legal fees with only half of it given, and has no plans to finish it.

He willnae tak' a drink! I think he's deid! , on the other hand though A Midgie in yir hand is worth twa up yir kilt.

Who's Wee Dug wrote:Assange also done a runner with the substantial advance money for a book to be written by a ghost writer, but instead spent the money to clear his legal fees with only half of it given, and has no plans to finish it.

Who's Wee Dug wrote:Assange also done a runner with the substantial advance money for a book to be written by a ghost writer, but instead spent the money to clear his legal fees with only half of it given, and has no plans to finish it.

As you do.

It would be hard to have plans to finish that book in his current situation, but that depends on what he has to keep himself busy in the embassy. Or how he could get the ghost writer into the embassy. Maybe through the walls. They are, after all, a ghost writer.

I am thinking it would be great for handicapped people.... but it needs to be more robust.... and imagine how much the engine and tracks add to the weight of the luggage! Once you get over the weight limit it might be more economical to hire a porter.

And it's probably like those vacuum robots that get constantly confused or lost or fall down stairs. Friends of ours have got one and they say it's like having a lovable but stupid pet. I wouldn't want to have to look after one of those when I'm running to catch a connecting flight or through Amsterdam to catch my train (Toothy will understand).

My daughter has a Robot Vacuum Cleaner !!! In fact she is now the area rep for them after doing a presentation for them at a home show a few weeks ago. I was very dubious about it but she got it the demo model for a quarter of the price. Score!

As she said... "Mum! The whole 2000 thing never lived up to what we all wanted right? (Wheres my jetpack???) But I CAN have a robot cleaning my floor!" True. Its not perfect... but she has navy coloured carpets and living with a long haired cat, her flat is remarkably tidier and she doesnt have to get the big vacuum cleaner out every second day. You have to be patient with them.

As a bonus, her cat Czara finally has a little friend She LOVES robotvacuum! Plays with it for hours. Hides in the hallway til it pokes itself through and POUNCES! bats it and runs off, lying in wait to pounce again. Or she will sit and look at it from the sofa... like she is SO over it... then POUNCE!!!!

Truly is going to get huge googly eyes to glue to the front of it. And yes it DOES act like a lovable stupid pet.